Glenn Beck's coded language may refer to obscure LDS doctrine

[Archie Moses]

This was posted a few weeks ago, but here it is again.


There was a recent religious survey. It was 15 questions. I took it and had no problem with any of the questions. I found the results rather interesting though.

* Over half of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther, whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation.
* Mormons scored best out of all religions on questions about the Bible.
* Over half of all Mormons report that they read books or go online to learn about their own religion at least once a week, compared to less than a third of Protestants.
* Jews, atheists, and agnostics scored high in most areas because of a tendency towards college educations. This group scored consistently high in knowledge about non-Christian religions.
* Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.

 

[GVC]

I would be surprised if the LDS religion wasn't in the top ten (of the bigger Christian churches) of having the most educated members. Would you disagree?

How could I (or you) possibly know? Given what I had been taught in church, I was surprised to find that there were many non-Mormons with a pretty good grasp of the bible in the various places I served my mission.

 

[Archie Moses]

How could I (or you) possibly know? Given what I had been taught in church, I was surprised to find that there were many non-Mormons with a pretty good grasp of the bible in the various places I served my mission.

No one could possibly know. It's just my opinion. I'm not saying it's right and I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong, but I know the LDS church does a pretty good job on educating its members on simple church beliefs and doctrines. From my experience, I would say it wouldn't be that far out to think the LDS people have a pretty basic and "same" understanding of basic principles to its religion as to others.

 

[GVC]

Mostly I didn't like the way you worded your post. Arrogant, Ignorant, etc (I know, I know, pot.kettle.). I would never say "the pizza I make is the best in the world" because, even if it's the best pizza I've ever had, I still haven't tried the overwhelming majority of pizzas out there. Had you said "in my experience", or something like that, which seems to be what you meant, I wouldn't have had any problem with your post.

In summation, it's really late, I don't feel like sleeping, and I'm cranky. The end.

 

[Archie Moses]

Mostly I didn't like the way you worded your post. Arrogant, Ignorant, etc (I know, I know, pot.kettle.). I would never say "the pizza I make is the best in the world" because, even if it's the best pizza I've ever had, I still haven't tried the overwhelming majority of pizzas out there. Had you said "in my experience", or something like that, which seems to be what you meant, I wouldn't have had any problem with your post.

In summation, it's really late, I don't feel like sleeping, and I'm cranky. The end.

That's funny you say that because I tried to edit my first post that was directed to kicky, but it wouldn't let me save the edit. Basically I said, "wow, that was pretty ignorant now that I think about it." I don't want to come off as arrogant or anything either. I'm just saying that in my personal experience, I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. I'm not trying to tell anyone they're wrong or anything like that. Anyways, I'm off to bed too.

 

[sirkickyass]

i gotta hear this story. Who on the board believes someone will be punished for adam's transgression? When did i miss this?

Re: The Second article of Faith.

Beantown tried to apply it pretty oddly somewhat recently, to argue that members shouldn't be concerned with their leader's spiritual shortcomings. That's pretty far afield from a renunciation of the concept of original sin.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...-to-Prop-8!!-HA!?p=11122&viewfull=1#post11122

Like what?

Re: The eighth article of faith.

I'm shocked you're even asking for examples. That's a core interpretation debate in viritually every LDS reconciliation of the bible and the book of mormon. People are all over the map on what parts are in and what parts are out.

Examples please.

Re: the seventh article.

I mentioned this having different applications in areas with pentacostals and ex-pentacostal members before. I have personally seen this variation in Atlanta.

If you're unfamiliar with why this article of faith might mean something a little stronger to ex-pentacostals, do a little research and it will make sense.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but are you aware of the abrahamic covenant?

Right there, you're proving my point. Some resolve this location issue via Abrahamic covenant; others have a more literal interpretation.

this was posted a few weeks ago, but here it is again.


There was a recent religious survey. It was 15 questions. I took it and had no problem with any of the questions. I found the results rather interesting though.

Irrelelvant to the issue at hand. That's about general religious knowledge across all religions (some questions are about eastern religions, etc.) And yes, the questions are very easy.

We're talking about level of consistency intra-faith as opposed to interfaith level of knowledge.

 

[Beantown]

Re: The Second article of Faith.

Beantown tried to apply it pretty oddly somewhat recently, to argue that members shouldn't be concerned with their leader's spiritual shortcomings. That's pretty far afield from a renunciation of the concept of original sin.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...-to-Prop-8!!-HA!?p=11122&viewfull=1#post11122

This is what I said:

#1 In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.

I was specifically talking about "judging others" or having "ill feelings" towards spiritual leaders shortcomings. I said NOTHING about BEING CONCERNED. Dont you ever dare to try and put words in my mouth so your 13 year old looking self can look smart.

 

[Archie Moses]

Right there, you're proving my point. Some resolve this location issue via Abrahamic covenant; others have a more literal interpretation.

Mormons believe that through the Abrahamic covenant we literally become his seed. The gathering of Israel will be a LITERAL gathering of the tribes.

 

[Archie Moses]

Re: The eighth article of faith.

I'm shocked you're even asking for examples. That's a core interpretation debate in viritually every LDS reconciliation of the bible and the book of mormon. People are all over the map on what parts are in and what parts are out.

Examples please. "I'm shocked you're even asking for examples" pretty much means you don't know have any.

 

[sirkickyass]

This is what I said:
I was specifically talking about "judging others" or having "ill feelings" towards spiritual leaders shortcomings. I said NOTHING about BEING CONCERNED. Dont you ever dare to try and put words in my mouth so your 13 year old looking self can look smart.

Bean: That was the context of your statement. I provided a link to the thread.

The point remains that the second article of faith is NOT about judging others or having "ill feelings towards other people." It's an explicit denunciation of the doctrine of original sin.

I don't have to put words in your mouth, you're the one demonstrating a heterodox interpretation of a pretty cut and dry article of faith. I remembered this months later because it so obviously shows a lack of understanding of both your own faith and its relationship to other faiths.

Archie: You see what I'm talking about here. One member on the board clearly has an exotic interpretation of an article of faith.

Re: Abrahamic covenant. Some members, particularly those caught up in the John Birch Society segment of Mormonism, place a lot more importance on the "American Continent" segments of that article of faith than the general Abrahamic covenant interpretation (which is the more mainstream interpretation in the church).

 

[sirkickyass]

Examples please. "I'm shocked you're even asking for examples" pretty much means you don't know have any.

No. It means exactly what it says. I'm amazed that you take this seriously and have no knowledge that there are debates as to what parts of the bible still count in the world of the book of mormon. That is a core subject among Mormon apologists and interfaith reconciliation efforts.

We've had this debate with respect to Gomorrah on this very board.

It's also an issue with respect to how the doctrine of Baptisms for the dead relates to the relevant passages in 1 Corinthians and that has been a subject of a fair amount of study.

There are differences in description as to why the Bible is translated "incorrectly." McConkie says that the issue is one of accuracy of translation. Mark Petersen describes the problems as ones caused by deliberate insertions in the text. Joseph Smith describes the problem as transmission errors. These all have different implications about the trustworthiness of the document and these are very high level disputes.

Since some argue that the problem with the Bible is that it is an "incomplete record" that makes a big difference in how Mormons feels about the validity of the apocrypha. That's a debate taken on by Talmage.

I could go on.

 

[Archie Moses]

Re: Abrahamic covenant. Some members, particularly those caught up in the John Birch Society segment of Mormonism, place a lot more importance on the "American Continent" segments of that article of faith than the general Abrahamic covenant interpretation (which is the more mainstream interpretation in the church).

We're talking about a religion in whole here. Not "some" members. How many LDS members are "caught up in the John Birch Society"? Of course some people believe different things, especially when you're talking about deeper doctrine. The main point is, the LDS religion in a whole has a pretty good and basic understanding of a) Christ b) baptism c) the plan of salvation (where do we come from, why are we here, and where are we going.) d) the scriptures and so on and so forth. I don't know why you're trying to argue that they don't more than other religions. Do you have anything credible that suggests the LDS religion member's have different beliefs because there is no professional clergy?

 

[sirkickyass]

Do you have anything credible that suggests the LDS religion member's have different beliefs because there is no professional clergy?

As opposed to your credible "opinion?" That is literally what you've based your statements on.

My opinion is also based on personal observation as well as judgments about the structure of the church. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the method in which Catholics choose their priests (i.e. through a formalized seminary in which the organization trains all of its clergy to teach the same things) is going to lead to greater harmonization than the pretty haphazard way that the LDS church chooses bishops, stake leaders, and other other leaders who are the immediate point of contact. The same is true of all churchs with formalized clergy training.

Obviously I would think that it's more harmonious in terms of its beliefs than some other faiths that are more decentralized than the LDS church like the Independent baptists and such.

 

[Beantown]

Kicky,

Here is what you typed:

Beantown tried to apply it pretty oddly somewhat recently, to argue that members shouldn't be concerned with their leader's spiritual shortcomings.

Either quote me on that or STFU.

Now here is what I typed again:

#1 In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.

See the part where it says " I HAVE". That is me referring to MYSELF not the ARTICLE of FAITH. Learn how to read. Kicky I know your balls are probably in proportion to the rest of your 13 year old physique but seriously grow a pair. Dont put words in my mouth and think you can get away with it.

 

[sirkickyass]

Bean the part of your statement I'm talking about is here:

In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.

That's before the I HAVE and is interpreting the Article of Faith. I'm not putting words in your mouth. That's what you said. The second article of faith is about original sin, not about the judgment of others. Do you seriously deny that?

 

[sirkickyass]

To add (since I'm having problems editing right now for some reason):

I have no particular reason to try to hunt you down four months after the fact Bean and lie about what you wrote. I remembered it because it was such an odd interpretation. And that conversation, where you applied the second article of faith to not judging others, was in the context of a discussion about the moral actions of church leaders generally and Chris Buttars as a bishop specifically. I'm not pulling your words out of context at all. Anyone who wants to look at the thread can judge for themsleves.

 

[Beantown]

Bean the part of your statement I'm talking about is here:



That's before the I HAVE and is interpreting the Article of Faith. I'm not putting words in your mouth. That's what you said. The second article of faith is about original sin, not about the judgment of others. Do you seriously deny that?

In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.

The judgement part is clearly referring to me because it directly comes after "I have". There is no reference to judgement and the 2nd article of faith in that paragraph.

The other bolded part is not only referring to "Adams original sin or transgression" but the other part in the 2nd article:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

Which means if a spiritual leader or even a Prophet falls, it has nothing to do with our own salvation.

 

[NUMBERICA]

You socialists have failed. Beck stands for freedom and free market, something that Americans are only now beginning to remember.

There's a reason why Beck has you liberals shaking in your boots. After November, the funding for your precious socialized health care is gone. The Communist experiment will be over in two more years too, thank goodness.

Beck is a gold mine too, foxnews ain't dropping him anytime soon. He just tells the truth. Freedom is a great thing. If you people don't like him, don't buy his products. Free markets are incredible when we let them be free, which is exactly what Beck advocates. Since when has government ever created jobs or money?

This is literally some of the dumbest crap I've ever seen on this site. Git 'er dun.

 

[franklin]

There are differences in description as to why the Bible is translated "incorrectly." McConkie says that the issue is one of accuracy of translation. Mark Petersen describes the problems as ones caused by deliberate insertions in the text. Joseph Smith describes the problem as transmission errors. These all have different implications about the trustworthiness of the document and these are very high level disputes.

I have the impression that you're combining the difference between precise doctrine and gray area. The above example isn't a very good argument for high variability within the LDS church. The 3 referenced people all allude to issues studied by textual critics. Deliberate insertions could be translation and/or transmission errors. Some translators "clarified" a passage by inserting a word that favored their interpretation. Some transmitters deliberately omitted or added to passages. You're nitpicking if you think this is varying interpretation.

I can see charismatic converts interpreting the "gift of tongues" quite differently. Is it variable interpretation or incorrect interpretation that needs to be fixed?

As far as I know, there isn't much LDS cannon on end-o-days. I'd put that in the "gray area" column. Religions come and gone have speculated heavily here. Rapture and its tribulation variants, preterism with it's variants and opponents, dispensationalism, etc.

I would expect the Roman Catholic Church to have the least variability due to the structured training of clergy. However, internal arguments often request moving back to correct, old catechisms.

LDS instruction comes from manuals. I'd expect much variability in a religion that expects personal study. The basic manual information is the same, but the individual outcome is going to vary based highly on individual effort, and compounded by personal biases (call it the Bircher effect--those people know everything from the start).

 

[C l u t c H 385]

can someone run through the churches position on Prop 8 again?